Bitz Casino - Player's account has not been self-excluded despite repeated requests.

I. INTRODUCTION

This complaint concerns Bitz Casino’s failure to enforce its own Self-Exclusion Policy and responsible gambling obligations after clear notice of gambling addiction, its misrepresentations regarding its ability to manually restrict accounts, and its continued acceptance of deposits and inducement to gamble until substantial losses occurred.

Bitz publicly represented that players who believe they are spending too much time or money gambling may request self-exclusion by contacting support. When those protections were invoked clearly, repeatedly, and before any deposits were made, Bitz refused to act.

II. KEY FACTS AND TIMELINE

Initial notice before deposits

I opened an account at Bitz on December 7, 2025. Before making any deposits, I reviewed Bitz’s Self-Exclusion Policy and attempted to access responsible gambling tools inside my account. The Responsible Gambling link was nonfunctional and led to a dead page.

Because no self-service safeguards were available, I immediately contacted support requesting permanent account closure and self-exclusion. I disclosed in writing that I am a problem gambler with an addiction and cannot play at casinos without functioning limits or self-exclusion tools.

Repeated requests and refusal

Over the following days, I requested self-exclusion, account closure, deposit blocks, or limits more than fifteen times via email, live chat, and Telegram. Every request was denied.

Bitz repeatedly stated that self-exclusion was only possible through the broken Responsible Gambling portal, that the portal was unavailable due to technical issues, and that manual self-exclusion, account closure, deposit blocks, or limits were not possible for legal or technical reasons. These representations were made repeatedly and in writing.

Continued deposits and inducement

Despite clear notice of gambling addiction and repeated requests to stop play, Bitz continued accepting deposits, continued marketing communications, and assigned a personal manager who encouraged continued gambling.

After notice, Bitz accepted $13,800 in deposits. No safeguards were applied.

Sudden reversal after escalation

After I formally escalated the matter and sent a demand letter advising that I would file complaints with Casino Guru and Bitcointalk, Bitz abruptly blocked my account on December 16, 2025.

This directly contradicted more than a week of written statements that manual action was impossible and confirms that Bitz had the ability to restrict or close my account but chose not to do so until after the losses occurred.

Partial settlement offer

Following the account restriction, a senior manager named Steven offered a partial refund of $5,000. I rejected the offer because it would allow Bitz to retain most funds accepted after responsible gambling protections were invoked and denied. Bitz has since ceased meaningful engagement.

Post-complaint concealment

As of December 19, 2025, Bitz removed its Self-Exclusion Policy from its website and removed the Responsible Gambling portal link from the player profile after these issues were raised publicly. I have preserved screenshots showing the prior existence of both and their removal.

III. LICENSING CONCERNS

Bitz claims to operate under an Anjouan Gaming license. Bitz does not display an Anjouan licensing seal on its website. The Anjouan Gaming License Register lists the license for Win Sector N.V. as expired as of November 21, 2025. This is relevant because Anjouan-licensed operators typically rely on the licensing framework to implement and validate self-exclusion mechanisms.

IV. RESPONSIBLE GAMBLING FAILURE

This case is not about losing money gambling. It concerns a casino that advertised responsible gambling protections, received clear notice of gambling addiction before any deposits, refused to implement self-exclusion or limits, continued accepting deposits and encouraging gambling, acted only after escalation, then attempted to retain most funds through a partial refund.

Responsible gambling tools that function only after harm occurs are not protections.

V. REQUESTED RESOLUTION

I request a refund of $13,800, representing all deposits accepted after Bitz received clear notice of gambling addiction and repeated requests for self-exclusion and account closure.

VI. EVIDENCE

I can provide written communications with Bitz support, screenshots of the broken Responsible Gambling portal, screenshots of the Self-Exclusion Policy before removal, screenshots showing removal on December 19, deposit records, Telegram communications including the settlement offer, and the formal demand letter.

Important notice:

Casino Guru will never ask for payments or access to your accounts to complete KYC. If someone claims to be from Casino Guru and does that, do not share any information.

We only contact players through this official complaint thread or via @casino.guru e-mail addresses. Always check the sender’s domain and verify your complaint resolver’s e-mail address by clicking on their avatar visible inside the official complaint thread.

If anything seems suspicious, contact us directly.

Stay safe.

Hello,

Thank you very much for submitting this complaint. I’m sorry to hear about the problem being experienced. Please allow me to ask a few questions to clarify the situation.

• What response was received from customer support via email on December 8, when it was clearly stated that the 7-day self-exclusion period should be implemented immediately?
• Please specify which casino support email address your self-exclusion requests were sent to.
• Am I correct in understanding that no restrictions whatsoever were applied to the account until December 16?

Please forward the remaining communication with customer support regarding the self-exclusion requests and the refund offer to veronika.f@casino.guru, so that the situation can be reviewed in full.

I hope we will be able to help resolve this issue as soon as possible. Thank you in advance for the reply.

Best regards

Veronika

Due to the increased volume of complaints during this time of year, we kindly request your patience while awaiting our responses. We aim to publish each complaint within 72 hours of submission, but reserve up to 7 days to reply to any subsequent comments. Additionally, please be aware that it might take a bit longer for your complaint to be assigned to a resolver, as we are currently managing over 1,000 complaints. Your understanding is greatly appreciated. Wishing you a delightful holiday season, and we will get back to you as soon as possible.

Hello Veronika,

Thank you for your message. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the record. Please see my responses below, organized to address each question directly.

What response was received from customer support via email on December 8, when it was clearly stated that the 7-day self-exclusion period should be implemented immediately?

On December 8, after I explicitly instructed Bitz Support to start the mandatory 7-day self-exclusion immediately, I received no email response confirming that the exclusion had been initiated or applied.

On December 9, after receiving no confirmation and no restriction, I followed up again by email reiterating that I had requested permanent self-exclusion multiple times and warning that I would escalate the matter if the request continued to be ignored. Later that same day, Bitz Support responded with instructions requiring completion of a 7-day self-exclusion by the player, but without acknowledging my December 8 instruction to begin the exclusion immediately and without applying any restriction.

In parallel, on December 8 and December 9, I was informed through Bitz live chat support and by my assigned personal manager via Telegram that the self-exclusion and responsible gaming section of the site was unavailable due to maintenance. I was repeatedly told that because the tool was down, self-exclusion, limits, deposit blocking, and account restriction could not be initiated.

Accordingly, although I expressly agreed to the 7-day requirement and requested it to start immediately on December 8, Bitz confirmed across multiple channels that it could not be implemented. No restrictions of any kind were applied to the account during this period.

Please specify which casino support email address your self-exclusion requests were sent to.

The self-exclusion requests were sent to the casino’s support email address: support@bitzmail.io.

In addition to email, I also made repeated self-exclusion and account closure requests through Bitz’s live chat support and directly to my assigned personal manager via Telegram.

Below is a Telegram message sent to me by my assigned personal manager on December 9. This message is included because it occurred after I disclosed gambling addiction and requested self-exclusion, and it reflects Bitz’s position at that time. The message confirms that self-exclusion was unavailable due to "maintenance" and discourages the use of technical restrictions by suggesting personal willpower instead. This shows that Bitz staff, across channels, treated self-exclusion as unavailable rather than as a mandatory protective measure once addiction was disclosed.

I will separately forward to you by email, additional relevant communications, including the refund offer, for full review.

 

Am I correct in understanding that no restrictions whatsoever were applied to the account until December 16?

Yes. No restrictions of any kind were applied to the account until December 16.

The December 8 message is the point at which I explicitly disclosed gambling addiction and requested self-exclusion to begin immediately. From that moment forward, responsible gambling obligations were clearly triggered. Despite this, no restriction, block, or limitation was applied to the account until December 16.

It is not credible for an online casino to claim it lacks the ability to manually restrict or block a player’s account. Bitz demonstrated that such manual control exists when it blocked the account on December 16, after having stated for approximately eight days that manual action was legally or technically impossible.

The account was only blocked after I sent a formal demand letter on December 14 and advised Bitz on December 16 that I would escalate the matter if it was not resolved. This confirms that the restriction requested on December 8 was technically possible but not implemented.

Additional Context Regarding Bitz Website Changes

Separately, I want to note that after this matter was raised publicly, Bitz removed its Self-Exclusion Policy and Responsible Gaming links from the website on or around December 19. I have preserved screenshots showing their prior existence and removal, in case this context is relevant when reviewing the current site.

Hello Veronika,

For completeness and transparency, I want to note that an AskGamblers complaint was filed on December 19 at the same time as this Casino Guru complaint. AskGamblers closed the case on December 25 as unresolved solely because Bitz refused to respond within their required deadline. The closure was procedural only and not based on the merits of my complaint.

I am continuing with Casino Guru’s review and will cooperate fully with any additional requests for information.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Bitz Responsible Gaming Failure Timeline 

December 7, 2025

6:19 PM

Account registered.

• Bitz’s website displayed a Self-Exclusion Policy at https://bitz.io/self-policy, linked near the Terms and Conditions.

• Section 6.8 of the Terms stated that players who feel they are losing control can enable self-exclusion through the Responsible Gaming section of their account.

• The Responsible Gaming link (https://bitz.io/responsible-gaming) led to a non-functional page.

 

9:02 PM

Email sent to Bitz Support requesting permanent account closure. The email explained that opening new accounts was inappropriate to get around loss limits at other casinos.

 

December 8, 2025

10:09 AM

Follow-up email sent after receiving no response.

 

2:22 PM – 3:03 PM

Live chat with support agent Lana.

• I requested permanent closure due to a gambling problem.

• Support stated the account could not be closed, deposits could not be blocked, and no limits could be applied unless the Self-Restriction tool was used.

• Support acknowledged the Responsible Gaming section was broken but insisted no manual action was possible.

 

6:33 PM

Email sent to Bitz Support explicitly disclosing gambling addiction and requesting permanent closure.

9:07 PM – 9:52 PM

Second live chat with Lana.

• Support confirmed self-exclusion was "under maintenance."

• No self-exclusion was active.

• Support refused manual closure, deposit blocking, or enforcement of country restrictions despite addiction disclosure and U.S. residency.

9:12 PM

Email received from Bitz stating a mandatory, irreversible 7-day self-exclusion was required before account deletion.

9:13 PM

Reply sent confirming agreement and requesting the 7-day self-exclusion be started immediately.

9:56 PM

Email received assigning a personal manager/casino host and advertising a "special offer."

 

December 9, 2025

1:22 PM

Email sent noting the 7-day exclusion had not started and the account remained unrestricted. Escalation threatened.

3:59 PM

Bitz replied stating self-exclusion must be performed by the player.

• This contradicted Bitz’s own Self-Exclusion Policy, which allowed requests via support.

 

December 9–14, 2025

Telegram communications with the assigned personal manager.

• Manager minimized technical safeguards and emphasized self-control and willpower over formal exclusion.

• Continued engagement, bonuses, promotions, and encouragement to play.

• Repeated statements that responsible gaming tools were unavailable.

 

December 15, 2025

11:28 AM – 12:09 PM

Live chat with support agent Jessy.

• Support confirmed the self-exclusion system was non-functional.

• No alternative method existed to self-exclude, close the account, limit deposits, or apply safeguards at a player’s request.

• Support admitted Bitz can manually close accounts for rule violations but refused to do so for gambling addiction.

• Support stated players from restricted countries may still play, contradicting Bitz’s Terms.

 

December 16, 2025

Only after escalation did the personal manager indicate Bitz would proceed with self-exclusion and account blocking.

• Manual blocking was implemented days after repeated requests and following Bitz's allowance of $13,800 in deposits, despite notice of gambling addiction and requests for self-exclusion.

Senior management involvement:

• Senior manager Steven entered the same Telegram thread, characterized the situation as a "classic scheme," and implied player fault rather than addressing responsible gaming failures.

• Shortly thereafter, Steven offered a $5,000 settlement and maintained the account block, implicitly acknowledging exposure related to the responsible gaming failures. Following my decline of the refund offer, Bitz ceased further communication.

December 19, 2025

Following public disclosure on Bitcointalk, Bitz removed its Self-Exclusion Policy and Responsible Gaming links from site navigation. This concealed that Bitz’s own Self-Exclusion Policy permitted exclusion and setting limits by emailing support and that Section 6.8 of the Terms and Conditions directed players to a Responsible Gaming section in the account dashboard that led to a non-functional page. Despite removal from the Bitz website, both pages remained accessible via direct URL as of December 28, 2025.

Hello ptaylor78,

We would like to update you that due to Veronika, your designated resolver, being on vacation, we have opted to extend the timeline by an additional 7 days. Since Veronika has an in-depth understanding of your situation and maintains direct communication with the casino, we find this extension justified. Your patience is sincerely appreciated, and I assure you that Veronika will contact you at the earliest opportunity.

Thank you for your understanding and ongoing patience.

Best regards, Casino Guru

Additional evidence for the record

I am adding an excerpt from an independent third-party review of Bitz published by Nick Hall, Senior Editor of Casinos.org (updated October 26, 2025), written prior to this dispute.

In that review, Mr. Hall states that Bitz had no functional in-account responsible gaming tools, and that self-exclusion had to be requested by emailing support, after which it was processed manually after a delay. He further notes there were no built-in deposit limits, timeouts, or session controls, and that all responsible gaming actions required staff intervention.

This is directly relevant to this complaint.

In my case, Bitz repeatedly represented that:

• The Responsible Gaming and Self-Exclusion section was "under maintenance"

• Manual self-exclusion, account blocking, deposit limits, or safeguards were not possible

• No alternative safeguards could be offered while the tool was unavailable

Those representations are contradicted by this independent review, which confirms that Bitz historically handled self-exclusion manually via support, even without a functional dashboard tool.

The review also predates my account and dispute, demonstrating that the absence of functional responsible gaming tools was not a temporary issue, but an established operating condition.

While Bitz eventually applied manual exclusion in my case after escalation, this occurred only after days of refusal, continued acceptance of deposits, and repeated statements that manual action was impossible. That sequence aligns with the systemic deficiencies described in the review and further supports that my initial self-exclusion requests were improperly denied.

This evidence is submitted to show:

• Manual self-exclusion was feasible despite Bitz’s claims

• The lack of safeguards was not a short-term technical outage

• Bitz’s representations to me were inconsistent with its actual practices

I submit this for Casino Guru's consideration as corroborating, third-party evidence of systemic responsible gaming failures.

Dear ptaylor78

Thank you for your cooperation and for providing all the necessary information. I truly appreciate the time and effort you’ve taken to share everything with us so far.

Your complaint will now move to the next stage of our process and be handled by your dedicated Resolver, Martin (martin.l@casino.guru). This is a standard step in our procedure, as the Resolver will take over communication with the casino directly and manage your case from this point onward.

No action is required from you right now. Your Resolver will reach out through this thread if any additional details are needed. You can rest assured that your case is in very capable hands.

I wish you the best of luck and hope your case will be resolved to your satisfaction soon.

Kind regards,

Veronika

Hello ptaylor78,

I am sorry to hear about your troubles. I am Martin and I will be taking care of your complaint from now on. As the first order of business, I would like to invite the Bitz Casino representative to enter the discussion.

Dear casino representative,

could you please check the case and explain the matter to us? From the information we have at our disposal, it seems that the player has been clearly communicating his gambling issues from 8th of December onwards. This means he seems to be entitled to a refund of his deposits from then on.

Thank you in advance for providing us with your view of the issue. In case there is any additional evidence/information you would like to present us, please send it to martin.l@casino.guru

Hi Martin:

Thank you for your message.

I am submitting additional evidence for your review.

I have identified two separate communications involving Jessy from Bitz support, which together demonstrate materially inconsistent representations by the operator regarding the availability of self-exclusion.

First, in a chat dated December 15, Jessy stated that:

• Self-restriction could only be activated independently within the account profile
• Chat support had no technical access to apply self-exclusion
• No manual self-exclusion, account blocking, deposit limits, or safeguards were possible
• Players were instructed to wait until technical maintenance was completed

At that time, I specifically asked whether any alternative safeguards were available due to gambling addiction. I was told none were possible and that Bitz lacked the technical ability to act.

Second, in a communication dated January 8, Jessy stated that self-exclusion was available upon request via email, live chat, or a personal manager, provided the account ID and request details were supplied.

These two positions cannot be reconciled. They involve the same Bitz representative giving opposite answers about whether self-exclusion was available through support channels during the same dispute period.

This contradiction is material. At the time my self-exclusion request citing gambling addiction was acknowledged, I was denied self-exclusion through all three channels:

• Account dashboard (Following email request)
• Support chat
• Personal manager

Bitz continued to accept deposits while representing that no safeguards were technically or manually possible. The January 8 statement that self-exclusion was available through support directly conflicts with those earlier denials.

I am submitting both screenshots together as corroborating evidence of these conflicting internal positions. They go directly to whether Bitz improperly refused a self-exclusion request after being put on notice of gambling addiction.

I remain available to respond to any follow-up questions.

Hi Martin:

I am submitting additional evidence relevant to the operator’s conduct following my December 8 request for self-exclusion and prior to any deposits being made.

After Bitz refused to apply self-exclusion on December 8, I sought an independent basis to have my account blocked. I explicitly informed Bitz that I am a resident of the United States, a jurisdiction listed as restricted under Section 3.3 of Bitz’s Terms and Conditions, and requested immediate account closure on that ground.

Bitz acknowledged my admission of U.S. residency but nevertheless refused to block the account. Instead, the operator stated that the account could only be blocked after completion of the self-exclusion process, including a seven-day self-exclusion period and repair of the Responsible Gaming tool that was described as "under maintenance." This position is difficult to reconcile with Bitz’s own terms, which prohibit accounts from restricted jurisdictions altogether and do not condition territorial enforcement on self-exclusion.

The first attached screenshot reflects this December 8 exchange, where Bitz confirmed my U.S. residency yet declined to block the account, citing the self-exclusion mechanism as a prerequisite even for territorial ineligibility.

Further, on December 15, a Bitz support agent (Jessy) made statements that further undermine the operator’s reliance on its own Terms and Conditions. When asked to confirm whether residency in a restricted country would violate Bitz’s rules, the agent responded that the list of countries reflects jurisdictions with "various restrictions," and stated:

"You may play, but there may be issues with loading games or our website."

This language, reflected in the second attached screenshot, suggests that Bitz treats its territorial restrictions as optional or technical rather than mandatory prohibitions. It directly contradicts Section 3.3 of the Terms and Conditions and further demonstrates inconsistent and selective enforcement of written rules.

Taken together, these communications show that Bitz refused to block my account despite (1) a self-exclusion request citing gambling addiction and (2) an explicit admission of residency in a restricted jurisdiction, both of which independently should have resulted in immediate account closure. The operator instead relied on shifting explanations and technical pretexts while allowing the account to remain active.

I am submitting these materials for the record as they directly bear on Bitz’s credibility, consistency, and adherence to its own published terms.

We would like to ask the casino to reply to this complaint. We are extending the timer by 7 days. If the casino fails to respond in the set time frame, we will close the complaint as ‘unresolved’ which may negatively affect its rating.

Attached is the AskGamblers decision closing my Bitz complaint as unresolved after more than four weeks of review and repeated requests to Bitz for a response. AskGamblers found that Bitz failed to provide reasonable justification or solid proof for refusing a refund after failing to implement self-exclusion and responsible gaming tools, after reviewing the full evidentiary record I submitted. The case was closed due to Bitz’s non-cooperation, with a confirmed rating decrease as a direct consequence. This is submitted for the record, as it directly corroborates the responsible gaming failures and lack of engagement reflected in this Casino Guru complaint.

Dear Ptaylor78,

As part of the account blocking procedure, you were duly informed of our updated blocking policy, including the applicable terms, conditions, and potential timelines for unblocking.

We remain open to constructive dialogue at all times, both via our online customer support chat and through your assigned personal manager.

Please note that no additional requirements or exceptions are provided for under our Responsible Gaming policy. Therefore, if you are unable to comply with or do not agree to the rules and terms governing the use of our platform, you should refrain from further use of the project.

From our side, during the blocking period we do not maintain communication with blocked users, do not provide bonuses, and do not take any actions aimed at encouraging or motivating unblocking. Accordingly, compliance with the blocking measures is also your personal responsibility.

As our project does not implement a KYC procedure, we do not have the technical capability to track or identify any additional accounts that you may create at any time. For this reason, the Responsible Gaming policy has been updated to its current form.

This approach is consistent with the practices of many international crypto projects operating under an Anjouan license, whose experience has been taken as a reference.

Kind regards,

Bitz Team

Dear casino representative,

I believe there may be a misunderstanding, as the complaint does not concern the period after the account was blocked or the current version of your Responsible Gaming policy. The issue lies within the period prior to December 16, when the player repeatedly requested self-exclusion and account restriction due to gambling addiction.

Based on the evidence provided by the player, he was repeatedly informed that manual self-exclusion or account blocking was not possible at that time, while deposits continued to be accepted.

Is there any particular reason to clarify why the requests were not acted upon at that time? Alternatively, are there any internal records which could shed more light on the situation and explain the casino's process in this matter?

As part of the account blocking procedure, you were duly informed of our updated blocking policy, including the applicable terms, conditions, and potential timelines for unblocking.

We remain open to constructive dialogue at all times, both via our online customer support chat and through your assigned personal manager.

Please note that no additional requirements or exceptions are provided for under our Responsible Gaming policy. Therefore, if you are unable to comply with or do not agree to the rules and terms governing the use of our platform, you should refrain from further use of the project.

For clarity, the above December 8 exchange shows I disclosed gambling addiction and requested permanent self-exclusion before any deposits were made, agreed to the 7-day process the casino described, and asked that it begin immediately, after which the casino accepted deposits.

Greetings from Bitz Team,

Kindly note that the player had been previously informed that the self-exclusion button was unavailable and that the Responsible Gaming rules would be updated shortly.

As an exception, we offered the player compensation in the amount of 5000$ which the player declined.

The player’s account was permanently blocked on December 16, with no possibility of reactivation.

Kind regards,

Bitz Team

Kindly note that the player had been previously informed that the self-exclusion button was unavailable and that the Responsible Gaming rules would be updated shortly.

The player’s account was permanently blocked on December 16, with no possibility of reactivation.

Resolving this complaint remains difficult because Bitz continues to avoid answering the central question posed by Casino Guru on January 7 and again on January 21:

Why were repeated requests for self-exclusion due to gambling addiction beginning on December 8 not honored at the time they were made?

Bitz has not answered this question because there is no clean answer.

Based on the evidence, the explanation is straightforward. Between December 8 and December 15, Bitz repeatedly stated that self-exclusion was only possible through an on-site "self-exclusion button," which was unavailable then and remains unavailable today. During that period, Bitz asserted that manual self-exclusion or manual account blocking was not possible and that no exceptions existed.

On December 16, after receiving a formal demand and notice of escalation, Bitz executed the very action it had claimed for over a week was impossible and manually blocked the account. By doing so, Bitz conclusively demonstrated that manual action was possible the entire time.

Accordingly, the reason Bitz failed to honor the December 8 self-exclusion request is not a broken tool. It is that Bitz made a conscious choice not to manually block the account (while accepting player deposits) despite having the ability to do so.

After several response periods and timers, Bitz has still not provided a substantive answer to the central question, prolonging the process without engaging the evidence.

It appears that while continuing to avoid a substantive response to the complaint, Bitz is selectively highlighting so-called ‘good acts’ to shape the public record. References to an updated responsible gaming policy, a $5,000 settlement offer (which would have left Bitz retaining the majority of deposits received after notice), and the eventual account block on December 16 are cited not to answer the core question, but to create the appearance of reasonableness when viewed in isolation.

Dear casino representative,

the main matter we are trying to get to the bottom of in this complaint is not whether the self-exclusion button was available. We understand technical difficulties can occur.

The issue is that the player clearly requested self-exclusion due to gambling addiction starting from December 7th onwards. From that moment, responsible gambling obligations should have been triggered in our opinion.

Since the automated button was unavailable, the request should have been enforced manually. The fact that the account was manually blocked on December 16 demonstrates that such intervention was technically possible. Therefore, the continued acceptance of deposits between December 8th and December 16th cannot be justified solely by the unavailability of a self-exclusion button.

At this point, we still believe the player is entitled to a refund of all deposits made from 8th of December onwards. Please let us know whether you are willing to issue a refund.

Greetings from Bitz Team,

Kindly note that the player was informed about the technical issue related to the self-exclusion button. As soon as it became technically possible to block the player, this action was taken.

As previously communicated, the player was offered compensation in the amount of USD 5,000, which he declined.

Currently, our self-exclusion policy is clearly defined, and we are unable to make any exceptions or adjustments for this particular player.

Kind regards,

Bitz Team

As soon as it became technically possible to block the player, this action was taken.

This statement is contradicted by Bitz’s own actions and communications. On December 16, Bitz manually blocked the account after previously asserting for over a week that manual self-exclusion or account blocking was not possible for technical or legal reasons. By manually blocking the account on December 16, Bitz demonstrated that manual action was possible all along.

An independent Casino.org review published in October 2025, months before the events underlying this complaint, further confirms that Bitz processed self-exclusion manually via email after a short delay and allowed exclusions to be extended permanently upon request. This directly contradicts Bitz’s claim that self-exclusion depended on a functioning in-account button and confirms that manual processes existed prior to December 2025.

Furthermore, on December 10, Bitz stated that "the self-exclusion process is a critical legal and security function that, by design, cannot be initiated by an employee" and requires a player’s direct in-system action to be valid. That position is irreconcilable with Bitz’s own conduct. In October 2025, a Casino.org senior writer was self-excluded via email. On December 16, Bitz manually blocked my account. If Bitz’s December 10 statement were true, both actions would be invalid. Bitz cannot claim manual action was impossible when refusing to act, then rely on manual action when convenient. They cannot have it both ways.

If Bitz cannot explain why it refused to act when manual action was clearly possible, this complaint is no longer a matter of interpretation, policy wording, or technical limitation. It is a documented failure of responsible gaming obligations, and the evidentiary record is complete.

With the evidentiary record above, there is no need to further examine Bitz’s assignment of a personal manager/host to a player who had already disclosed gambling addiction, nor the continued messaging and inducement to play. If a broken self-exclusion button truly prevented action, Bitz would also have been unable to stop its casino host from messaging and promoting play. That excuse was never raised, because it was never true.

Likewise, there is no need to further explore Bitz’s removal of its Self-Exclusion Policy, which was publicly accessible on its website throughout my time as a player from December 7 through December 16 and was removed on December 19, during the dispute. That policy explicitly allowed self-exclusion via email, consistent with the Casino.org senior editor’s October 2025 review. The policy remains accessible at the following link despite its removal from Bitz’s site: https://bitz.io/self-policy.

Bitz has now answered Casino Guru’s question. They refuse to refund deposits accepted after receiving clear notice of gambling addiction. Those deposits were accepted only because Bitz refused to apply a manual account block it later proved it had the ability to impose. Bitz knowingly allowed continued gambling after explicit notice of addiction and now refuses a refund despite review by two independent mediators who each concluded a refund is warranted under the evidentiary record and Bitz’s responsible gaming obligations.

Despite these conclusions, Bitz refuses accountability and appears to believe the proper remedy for its responsible gambling failures is to retain $13,800 in deposits.

As previously communicated, the player was offered compensation in the amount of USD 5,000, which he declined.

In the alternative, Bitz proposes keeping $8,800 in improperly collected deposits while refunding $5,000 as so-called compensation. This position follows Bitz’s refusal to honor a self-exclusion request due to gambling addiction before any deposits were made and its repeated misrepresentations regarding its ability to act.

Dear parties,

thank you for your responses.

Dear casino representative,

could you please provide us with the player's deposit history?

Dear ptaylor78,

Is it possible for you to provide us with your deposit history or a bank statement documenting your deposits to the casino?

Hi Martin,

Attached is the deposit history.

Before any deposit was made, including the initial Solana deposit equivalent to $98.82 USD, I disclosed gambling addiction, requested self-exclusion, and agreed to begin the casino’s required 7-day self-exclusion period.

The second deposit in Solana was equivalent to $478.26 USD. All subsequent deposits were made in USDC at stable value. The total amount of deposits made after notice was given to Bitz is $13,854.30 USD.

The deposits of $22.85 and $36.32 are excluded from this total because those amounts did not originate from my own funds.

We would like to ask the casino to reply to this complaint. We are extending the timer by 7 days. If the casino fails to respond in the set time frame, we will close the complaint as ‘unresolved’ which may negatively affect its rating.

Casino Guru and another independent mediator have already rejected Bitz's "broken self exclusion button" explanation as a valid excuse. With that defense off the table, Bitz now claims it lacked the technical ability to block a player account after a request for self exclusion due to gambling addiction.

That claim is not credible. It is false. To be direct, it is a lie.

Bitz controls logins.

Bitz controls deposits.

Bitz controls wagers.

Bitz controls withdrawals.

Bitz controls bonuses and promotions.

Bitz assigns personal managers.

Bitz can freeze withdrawals instantly. Bitz can suspend accounts instantly for "security review." Yet Bitz claims they could not block an account after a self exclusion request.

There is documented evidence Bitz had the ability to block accounts in October 2025. Bitz had the ability to do so on December 16, 2025. Bitz has the ability to do so now in February 2026. Bitz shamelessly asks us to believe this capability somehow did not exist only between December 7 and December 15.

That position is outrageous and cannot be taken seriously.

An online casino cannot operate without full administrative control over accounts. Blocking access is a basic backend function. If they can accept deposits in seconds, they can disable an account in seconds.

This was not a technical failure. It was a choice while continuing to accept deposits and offer promotions and bonuses.

After accepting $13,800 in deposits following clear notice, Bitz offered $5,000 in what was clearly a low settlement attempt to make the issue go away while retaining the majority of the deposits. When that offer was declined, Bitz shifted to the position that they owe nothing at all. Meanwhile, other players have opened complaints describing the same pattern of conduct.

Two independent mediators concluded deposits made after the self exclusion request should be refunded by Bitz. Bitz has refused.

Bitz’s defense is internally inconsistent and technologically implausible. Presenting it as a legitimate excuse is dishonest, in bad faith and represents a lack of respect for responsible gambling and dispute resolution process.

On February 15, 2026, I personally reached out to Bitz support, more than two months after they claimed in December 2025 that their self exclusion button was "under maintenance" and would be restored soon. The tool was still unavailable, despite the language in Section 6.8 of their Terms and Conditions referencing it.

Support informed me that the only way to self exclude was to request it through chat or by email, and that they would block the account upon request.

In December 2025, Bitz claimed this same manual method was not technically possible and legally insufficient. Now they confirm it is their standard procedure.

So essentially this complaint boils down to Bitz Casino refusing to refund $13,800 in deposits and repeating a false claim that between December 7 and 15, they mysteriously lost administrative control over their casino and could not manually block accounts.

Greetings from Bitz Team,

Kindly be advised that the player was notified about the technical malfunction affecting the self-exclusion feature. Once the issue was resolved and it became technically feasible to restrict the account, the player was promptly blocked.

As stated earlier, a compensation payment of USD 5,000 was proposed to the player, however he chose not to accept this offer.

Please note that our self-exclusion policy is firmly established and consistently applied. Therefore, we cannot make any exceptions or changes in this case.

Kind regards,

Bitz Team

Dear casino representative,

Thank you for your responses and for outlining your position.

After a thorough review of all the information and evidence provided by both sides, we understand your explanation regarding the technical issues related to the self-exclusion feature. However, we are unable to agree that this justifies the continued acceptance of deposits after the player had clearly communicated gambling addiction and requested to stop playing.

From our perspective, responsible gambling obligations cannot be set aside due to technical limitations, particularly when manual intervention later proved to be possible. As a result, we are unable to accept the casino’s position in this matter.

Since no further progress can be made at this stage, the complaint will now be closed accordingly.

Dear ptaylor78,

I am truly sorry I could not be of further help. Unfortunately the casino has refused our proposal, but bear in mind, that unresolved complaints will have a negative impact on the casino's safety index and other players will be able to learn about your experience.

As a next step, I recommend reaching out to the Anjouan Gaming Licensing Authority and submitting a complaint through their website at https://anjouangaming.com/submit-dispute/. They have additional tools and options to assist players in these situations. For guidance on how to effectively submit your complaint to the regulator, you can find helpful information at https://casino.guru/submitting-complaints-to-regulators. If you need any assistance with the submission process or receive a response from the regulator, please don’t hesitate to email me at martin.l@casino.guru. I’m truly sorry that I couldn’t provide a more favorable resolution this time.

Best regards

Martin

We’ve reopened this complaint at the request of both parties. We would like to allow this case one more chance to be resolved and help both parties involved to reach a satisfactory conclusion.

We'd like to inform everyone following this case that the player has marked this complaint as resolved using the dedicated button.

Dear ptaylor78,

We are pleased to hear that your issue has been resolved. We will mark the complaint as 'Resolved' in our system. Thank you for your cooperation and confirmation. If you experience any future issues with this or any other casino, please don’t hesitate to reach out to our Complaint Resolution Center. We are here to assist you.

As always, our services are free of charge, and we do not accept any gratuities. However, we would greatly appreciate it if you could take a moment to share your experience with our services on Trustpilot: https://trustpilot.com/evaluate/casino.guru. Your honest review, along with any suggestions for improvement, would be incredibly valuable. It can also help others who are considering contacting us for assistance with online casino-related matters.

Thank you in advance for your time and feedback.

Best regards,

Martin